Bone Response to Four Dental Implants with Different Surface Topographies: A Histologic and Histometric Study in Minipigs

Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;36(5):745-54. doi: 10.11607/prd.2719.

Abstract

This study evaluated four implant surfaces in a minipig model: (1) Kohno Straight dual-engineered surface (DES) (Sweden & Martina); (2) SLActive (Straumann); (3) SM Biotite-H coated with Brushite (DIO); and (4) UF hybrid sandblasted and acid etched (HAS) (DIO). The surfaces presented different topographic features on the macro-, micro-, and nanoscales. After 12 weeks in vivo, significant differences were observed in bone-to-implant contact. UF HAS, presenting moderate microroughness and high nanoroughness, showed some advantage compared to nanorough SM Biotite-H and SLActive. A more pronounced difference was observed between UF HAS and Kohno Straight DES, characterized by a nanosmooth surface. Newly formed bone was observed around all surfaces.

MeSH terms

  • Animals
  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible
  • Dental Implantation, Endosseous / methods*
  • Dental Implants*
  • Hardness
  • Implants, Experimental
  • Male
  • Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
  • Models, Animal
  • Osteogenesis / physiology
  • Surface Properties
  • Swine
  • Swine, Miniature
  • Tibia / surgery
  • Titanium

Substances

  • Coated Materials, Biocompatible
  • Dental Implants
  • Titanium